rkomorn

That is basically my strategy. Everything I buy is with the intent of selling in a couple of decades when retirement comes, at the earliest.

Would you have $100k now or would you have sold it when it tripled to $3000 because that would've felt like a really good return already, though?

I guess if your business is to make urns, then your innovation ideas all center around urns. For Spotify, it's ... more questionable, but I can't imagine it was their idea.

But yeah, I agree with your sentiment, it's pretty weird.

Not a problem for me... I'm a dog person.

This would definitely make me want to rejoin tech.

But... what are they going to do with all that silicone?

Maybe I'm too old or my family was weird. We called it "le carwash" with a beautifully French "carouache" pronunciation. But yeah, "lave-auto" sounds more familiar.

I was speaking generally, and wrote that people like him (not him specifically) are elite within the top 1%. So basically 1% of the 1%.

Not that I mean the percentages factually, more like an order of magnitude.

But my point is, in terms of "natural ability", I don't believe there is that much of a gap among top performers, but that things like work ethic and determination, and also some luck in environments, is what ends up setting them apart.

That's why I think they're worth praising: it's not just a spin of genetic roulette (unless one believes every single attribute about us is genetic, I guess).

It's optimism like this that keeps me in the market.

> based purely on the genes they didn't have to work for

Modeling is notorious for its negative impact on models' health.

They absolutely work for it, and in one of the most toxic work environments.

There are people wired like Tao (or superstar athletes, supermodels, or other remarkable people) that don't achieve the same results.

Even among the people who have similar "luck" in that respect, some still stand out. The people we think of as elite performers aren't just elite relative to the 99% of us. They're also elite within the top 1% that makes up their field: they're dominant even among the people who should be their peers.

This has strong Chuck Norris facts vibes.

I've been gone from France too long. I've never heard "station de lavage" before.

Tell me about it. When Brave started the whole BAT thing 8 years ago, I had a wallet with $25 in it.

Lost access to it but today that wallet would be worth over $10.

> although we sometimes hear gunshots when the Cowboys score a touchdown

Must be pretty quiet all year 'round then.

The air travel industry as a whole never ceases to amaze me with how little regard it has for its passengers and crews.

It's one thing to provide bad service, but these kinds of incidents just lack any kind of humanity.

If you had to choose between picking someone up at the airport or dragging a slice of pizza twice your size down the NYC subway stairs, what would YOU do?

> I've started reading more technical books again

How's that working out for you in the context of working with AI tools? Do you feel like it's helping you make better use of them? Or keeping your mind sharp?

I've been considering getting some books on core topics I haven't (re)visited in a long time to see if not having to write as much code anymore instead gives me time to (re)learn more and accelerate.

Makes sense but there's just... so much of it. That and all the shovelware.

It's just hard to imagine that's anything close to what Nintendo wants users to experience, but I guess they need the money.

I'm kinda baffled about the Switch store's quantity of dating/whatever adult-ish games.

I don't really want to turn on age-based filters (to the point that I've never investigated if they even exist) but at this rate, there's hardly anything worth looking at in the recent feed.

I don't listen to Altman. Feel free to take this kind of comment somewhere else.

> humans still learn more effectively with less information

> because there are innate mechanisms which process this data continuously and extract new meanings from the same data

To me, these statements strongly contradict each other, but I also really do not care enough to debate it.

The 16 hours of audio/video per day was a reference to being alive and hearing/seeing things for years before you actually could learn the alphabet.

It was not meant as literally sitting at a screen with audio/video for 16 hours a day.

> A human doesn’t need 100TB of books to learn the alphabet.

A human does need 16ish hours per day of audio/video content for several years to learn the alphabet.

They never made me say it but they did make me stand while the other kids did. That said... that was more than three decades ago.

I was only 9 the first time it happened but even back then it felt really weird.

I found it interesting that placebo effect is also sort of relevant in pet care: it makes owners believe the pet is doing better.

Unfortunately, the study that showed this used the same medicine my dog had been on, and since it was for epilepsy, I can totally believe that whether I thought it worked had no connection to its effectiveness.

Looks like Gargamel of Smurfs fame to me.

Reddit is currently blocked nationwide in France? I can't seem to easily find corroborating info.

Someone born in 89, in many countries, would've grown up with the internet and non-smart cell phones, at least, no?

They'd only have been 10 in 1999 when cell phones were pretty ubiquitous among adults. I'd say they were basically past it already.

I was born ten years earlier and I'd agree that the internet is likely the biggest change in my lifespan, but I'm not sure I'd say it was as sudden as the past 2 years of AI.

It's bad enough they didn't bother to actually write it, but often it seems like they also didn't bother to read it either.